Experts Say Pa. Not Affected

June 23, 1992|by MARGIE PETERSON, The Morning Call Reporters Dan Hartzell and Laurie Rice-Maue also contributed to this story.

Pennsylvania's law against hate crimes should not be affected by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision protecting cross burning and other similar acts as free speech, legal experts said.

The court yesterday ruled unconstitutional a St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance that banned the display of symbols, objects or writings designed to generate "anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

The closest Pennsylvania has to such a law is the Ethnic Intimidation Act, under which a criminal faces more serious charges and more severe penalties if he commits a crime -- arson or assault, for example -- that is motivated by hatred of another's race, color, religion, or national origin.

If someone paints a swastika on the home of a Jewish family, the offender can be charged with vandalism under the act. But if it can be proven that the crime was motivated by religious hatred, the charge can be upgraded one step, from a second degree misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, said Mike Moyle, a spokesman for the state Attorney General's office.

This type of law is called penalty enhancement, and Moyle and others said it will probably not be affected by the Supreme Court decision.

"The majority opinion does not address the constitutionality of penalty-enhancement statutes, and we are convinced such statues are valid," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith. The ADL had filed an amicus brief asking the court to rule the St. Paul ordinance constitutional.

Phyllis Alexander, director of Allentown's Human Relations/Equal Opportunity office, said she did not see the court's decision as a setback to the work of her office.

"The work ahead of us is not to get rid of cross burnings, but get rid of the reason for cross burnings," said Alexander.

She said her office works to change attitudes, promote tolerance and understanding between people of different races, religions and sexes, and remove the barriers that lead to oppression and discrimination.

"I've not seen laws changing attitudes," she said. "They change behavior when people think they are going to get caught."

Alexander said the city can still pursue offenders under the Ethnic Intimidation Act, coupled with the more conventional laws against harassment, vandalism, arson and assault.

Richard Burton, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), said the court's decision was bad, but not surprising, considering the mood of the country and Supreme Court's swing to the right.

"The Reagan-Bush administration has set the tone," said Burton. Both Reagan and Bush contributed to the deterioration of race relations by trying to undermine Civil Rights laws, and ignoring growing inequities, Burton said.

"I don't think we should look at this decision and say someone has won," he said. "We all lose."

Matt Langsam, director of community relations for the Jewish Federation of Allentown, said he was the court ruling, and could not yet comment on it.

Last December, someone spray-painted a swastika and the word "Nazi" on a balcony outside the Jewish Community Center.

This morning the state House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate an amendment to the state Ethnic Intimidation Act that would extend the law's protection to victims of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-182th District, of Philadelphia -- the prime sponsor of the bill -- said she expects a lively discussion, but does not think the Supreme Court decision will affect either the Ethnic Intimidation Act or her proposed amendment to it.

Josephs said the reason behind increasing the possible penalties for crimes motivated by ethnic or racial hatred is that such crimes are used to intimidate an entire race or religion, not just harm the victim.

But she agreed with the Supreme Court decision, saying the government should not regulate the content or viewpoint of speech.

Several local government agencies contacted, including those in Lehighton, Bethlehem, Easton, Quakertown, Richland Township, and Allentown, said they did not have hate crimes ordinances, but could use the Ethnic Intimidation Act to prosecute hate crimes.

Depending on the act of hatred, other laws also could come into play, they said.

Anyone trying to burn a cross in Richland Township, for example, would have their work cut out for them.

"You're not allowed to burn anything from dusk to dawn," said George Gardner, Richland Township planning and zoning officer. Anyone burning anything outside has to supervise the fire, keep it 50 feet from any structure and have something on hand to extinguish it, he said.